The Red Revolution, Now It's Official
- Thread starter Verko
- Start date
vandeha said:
This, I do not agree with... look at digital audio, are the songs better now? Or has the market been flooded with mediocre music that is more marketable than good on the retail side and a ton of indie bands that just arent very good on the grass roots side? Just because you open the borders of creativity does not mean that media gets better. I would argue the reverse, many of the best, most creative albums and films have come from artists who were very limited in resources that creativity is all they had. Sometimes, too much tech and to many resources can inhibit creation. Sorry, I just dont buy that resolution and DOF are creative boundaries... technical boundaries, but not creative.
ash =o)
yagfxg33k
Well-known member
When Synthesizers became affordable - Especially sampling keyboards, the hue and cry became "musicians are obsolete". Every 10 year old could get a computer, sequencer and a synth and make the next Dark side of the moon. Orchestras would no longer have a place in society.
Certainly, this has not come to fruition. The only real impact is that acoustic pianos have fallen down in terms of sales. When I watch a lot of indie shorts shot on Mom's handicam and listen to the score, I know that it's been done on a computer with MIDI. It sounds like it.
When I hear a score done on actual instruments, it's a world of difference. The next Paganini that was waiting in the wings only to be freed by technology does not exist. The next Paganini's genius is not determined by technology. It's inate.
I have yet to see the film that supplants masterworks like Goodfellas or Citizen Kane that were shot on mom's Handicam. Is that because of the limitations of Mom's Handicam? Most certainly, that is not the case.
I do find it amusing that when Citizen Kane came out everyone was OOOing and AHHing over the use of deep focus. About how the viewer had to be alert and watching each shot carefuly because they did not have a director using DOF to focus their attention to whatever they wanted in a scene. Now, with small sensor DV cameras, everyone jumps through hoops to go the opposite direction using M35 or any number of other devices...
La Jetee could have been shot with a Kodak Instamatic camera. The use of such a camera would not have diminished the genius of the work. Someone around here has a quote that there can be no art without limitations. I think there is a lot of truth in that.
Look at a lot of low budget films and how the film makers had to get creative to overcome budget limitations and ended up with a better product. We don't see the shark in Jaws for a good portion of the beginning of the film because the shark was broken. That made for a better film.
Certainly, this has not come to fruition. The only real impact is that acoustic pianos have fallen down in terms of sales. When I watch a lot of indie shorts shot on Mom's handicam and listen to the score, I know that it's been done on a computer with MIDI. It sounds like it.
When I hear a score done on actual instruments, it's a world of difference. The next Paganini that was waiting in the wings only to be freed by technology does not exist. The next Paganini's genius is not determined by technology. It's inate.
I have yet to see the film that supplants masterworks like Goodfellas or Citizen Kane that were shot on mom's Handicam. Is that because of the limitations of Mom's Handicam? Most certainly, that is not the case.
I do find it amusing that when Citizen Kane came out everyone was OOOing and AHHing over the use of deep focus. About how the viewer had to be alert and watching each shot carefuly because they did not have a director using DOF to focus their attention to whatever they wanted in a scene. Now, with small sensor DV cameras, everyone jumps through hoops to go the opposite direction using M35 or any number of other devices...
La Jetee could have been shot with a Kodak Instamatic camera. The use of such a camera would not have diminished the genius of the work. Someone around here has a quote that there can be no art without limitations. I think there is a lot of truth in that.
Look at a lot of low budget films and how the film makers had to get creative to overcome budget limitations and ended up with a better product. We don't see the shark in Jaws for a good portion of the beginning of the film because the shark was broken. That made for a better film.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I am with Ash in this thread. Great points made.
-
Technology does make the artist or the art. Creativity is best served by limitation (as put by Welles). Red is not going to make or break any film careers here. If anyone is counting on Red to be the end all to their dreams then they've already failed.
-
What makes a film suceed ?
Actors -
The singulary first ingredient that will sink your ship when that actor opens their mouth and just cannot act.
Story/Content -
The second ingredient where the audience looks up and realizes they are no longer interested and they start looking at thier watch or thinking of that errand list
Cinematography - and not the quality of the image; but the compositions, the framing, the cuts, the lighting, the mis-en-scene .... the manner in which the captured images tell the story.
(See Pieces of April and 28 Days Later, shot on the PD-150 and the Xl1, respectively ... )
Sound - From foley, to FX to the recording of the talent's voices. The Audio track imerses our audience into our world and creates that sensory experience.
Camera - This particalur item may be the farthest requirement on the list.
-
Technology does make the artist or the art. Creativity is best served by limitation (as put by Welles). Red is not going to make or break any film careers here. If anyone is counting on Red to be the end all to their dreams then they've already failed.
-
What makes a film suceed ?
Actors -
The singulary first ingredient that will sink your ship when that actor opens their mouth and just cannot act.
Story/Content -
The second ingredient where the audience looks up and realizes they are no longer interested and they start looking at thier watch or thinking of that errand list
Cinematography - and not the quality of the image; but the compositions, the framing, the cuts, the lighting, the mis-en-scene .... the manner in which the captured images tell the story.
(See Pieces of April and 28 Days Later, shot on the PD-150 and the Xl1, respectively ... )
Sound - From foley, to FX to the recording of the talent's voices. The Audio track imerses our audience into our world and creates that sensory experience.
Camera - This particalur item may be the farthest requirement on the list.
Darkline
Veteran
well said john
you know for years my friend and I have been saying 'yeh we'll make the good scripts when we have better equipment'... but it's a load of old crap.
I wish it was 10 years ago and I knew now what I did then. I'd just be out there making stuff on anything I could find.... true VHS-C didnt enitrely cut it; but as soon as 24p mini-dv came around we were all out of excuses.
I think Red will just a) make me get my ass into gear as I'll have spent ALL my money on it and panic for every day that passes without using it...
b) maybe make other people such as actors take it all a bit more seriously as you can say you're shooting at feature film quality (if you have the supporting kit). The amount of clients I've seen say "Is that what you're shooting on?" Drives me mad. But I'd rather a DVX over an interlaced betacam.
True about sound. Our eyes adjust and accept poor quality footage as a stylistic choice in a film. Our ears do not accept poor quality sound and will quickly label it as an amateur production.
I personally dont see Red making a revolution in the terms of the quality of films available. As DV didn't. It just means the rising indie filmaker has more options than before. But it does mean longer download times for really badly made films that you turn off after 20 seconds (some of mine included Im sure
)...... i cant wait.
you know for years my friend and I have been saying 'yeh we'll make the good scripts when we have better equipment'... but it's a load of old crap.
I wish it was 10 years ago and I knew now what I did then. I'd just be out there making stuff on anything I could find.... true VHS-C didnt enitrely cut it; but as soon as 24p mini-dv came around we were all out of excuses.
I think Red will just a) make me get my ass into gear as I'll have spent ALL my money on it and panic for every day that passes without using it...
b) maybe make other people such as actors take it all a bit more seriously as you can say you're shooting at feature film quality (if you have the supporting kit). The amount of clients I've seen say "Is that what you're shooting on?" Drives me mad. But I'd rather a DVX over an interlaced betacam.
True about sound. Our eyes adjust and accept poor quality footage as a stylistic choice in a film. Our ears do not accept poor quality sound and will quickly label it as an amateur production.
I personally dont see Red making a revolution in the terms of the quality of films available. As DV didn't. It just means the rising indie filmaker has more options than before. But it does mean longer download times for really badly made films that you turn off after 20 seconds (some of mine included Im sure
)...... i cant wait.
Stephen W
Well-known member
John_Hudson said:
But you can work around a bad actor. OK, so if they're all rubbish you're screwed, but if it's just the odd one you can cope (Ryan's Daughter?)
I'd promote this to top of the list, A1, single most important thing from the get go. Without a great story you've got nothing.
But you can make a great film with mediocre Cinematography. Great Cinematography cannot make a rubbish film any good (but best to have both).
My comments about Cinematography would apply here too.
IMVHO the camera you use and how you use it is part of the art of cinematography, not a separate item. But the general point about what camera you use not determining whether your film is any good I accept. But I also think that what Red does is a) Give you the opportunity of making something far better than you otherwise could afford and b) Give you a better opportunity of your film being succesful if it is good.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I wish this was true. I'm cutting something as we speak and there just is not a work-around. Acting just kills a project from the get go. I am referring to this in linear terms:
Curtain opens, movie starts, actor opens mouth ....... story comes later (See below).
Thousands of films are out ther right now with stories that do not make it past the first act. The story is the last thing that holds up before the audience realizes they're wasting their time. While the story is the first thing that propells a film to greatness at the end of the day, it will keep it afloat the longest.
I agree. No but's about it and exactly why it's not on the top of the list.
I can't even think of a film with poor sound/audio. Can you ?
I think a quality camera is important but when throwing names around like Arri, Panivision, Aaton, Viper, Genesis, Cinealta, (and the subsequent Red ?) it's neglible. Any of these choices would tell the majority of stories out there.
IMO always
-
Darkline ...
Also well put !
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
John_Hudson said:
Great list John, I would agree with it 100%! :thumbsup:
what about editing?
what about editing?
we are talking about motion picture here so i would not only include editing but put it up there with cinematography. after all, if you're speaking purely of composition, you might as well be talking about still photography. film/digital cinema and all storytelling is about the pacing, timing and juxtaposition of images and sound. and you could arguably remove sound. you don't need it for 99% of all visual-based storytelling. sorry to get all film school.
#121
what about editing?
John_Hudson said:
we are talking about motion picture here so i would not only include editing but put it up there with cinematography. after all, if you're speaking purely of composition, you might as well be talking about still photography. film/digital cinema and all storytelling is about the pacing, timing and juxtaposition of images and sound. and you could arguably remove sound. you don't need it for 99% of all visual-based storytelling. sorry to get all film school.
#121
Haha. Acrochordon actually deleted the first post I actually had a clue to as to the point he was making.
I kinda' agree with him - this is an oft repeated topic. Too often, IMHO.
Gibby, don't forget to copy and pate that nice post of yours, cause you'll need to dust it off more than once
For me, it just comes down to choice - mine and the marketplaces.
Also, acting is the conveyance of story, so I don't see how you can separate them. If a director is shooting something that is clearly bad, then it's their duty to intervene in whatever way necessary - recast, reshoots, creative editing, voice over, shut down production, rewrites and on and on. Really bad acting is really bad directing...which is why you rarely see bad acting in indies and studio flicks, but merely mediocre acting.
In that case the imperatives of story beat out mediocre acting every single time. Story is the most illusive and the most challenging element in film making today, IMHO. And what is clearly lacking in the marketplace today... Of course, I have a special regard for writing, so I may be biased. :beer:
Digital cinema. Learn it. Kick a$$.
RED # rebel with a clue
I kinda' agree with him - this is an oft repeated topic. Too often, IMHO.
Gibby, don't forget to copy and pate that nice post of yours, cause you'll need to dust it off more than once
For me, it just comes down to choice - mine and the marketplaces.
Also, acting is the conveyance of story, so I don't see how you can separate them. If a director is shooting something that is clearly bad, then it's their duty to intervene in whatever way necessary - recast, reshoots, creative editing, voice over, shut down production, rewrites and on and on. Really bad acting is really bad directing...which is why you rarely see bad acting in indies and studio flicks, but merely mediocre acting.
In that case the imperatives of story beat out mediocre acting every single time. Story is the most illusive and the most challenging element in film making today, IMHO. And what is clearly lacking in the marketplace today... Of course, I have a special regard for writing, so I may be biased. :beer:
Digital cinema. Learn it. Kick a$$.
RED # rebel with a clue
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
wigby said:
:beer: Of course. Editing is my favorite part of the filmmaking experience.
My list was a general assesmment of course, but no one is watching silent films anymore, are they ?
I like to think of the tools I use as musical instruments. Each instrument has a tone all of its own, and each instrument has characteristics that lead me down certain roads. Duplicating what's possible with a trumpet on a keyboard with sampler and keyboard is a daunting task; nowadays it's possible to get close, especially with a "horn section", but you'll never get the full range of what you can do with a trumpet using samplers and keyboards.
And within an instrument class, comparing violins to violins, there is a real difference between cheapos and a Stradivarius, when in the right hands. A virtuoso can make a cheapo sound great, but the same virtuoso WILL be able to noticeably improve on the performance with a higher-end violin. A novice will be limited either way, and only training, talent, tenacity (see Gibby's earlier post) will allow the novice to improve their results.
You can't make Citizen Kane or Barry Lyndon with grandma's handycam. For Barry Lyndon, lens speed, stock speed, development, etc. was critical for the candlelit scenes, for example, and the candlelit scenes were important in portraying that world. You couldn't convey the scale shown in Citizen Kane with a Handycam. The Handycam would detract from the story and make it laughable in certain scenes. You CAN make an equally impactful and artistic work with the Handycam, provided you use it's tone and flavor to further the story. Eraserhead was not technically state of the art at the time, hehe, but the look was integral with the story, in my opinion.
The DVX had a distinctive look that opened doors for many people, because of its progressive imagers, size, and price. It had it's own tone and flavor, and it could be put into some really tight spaces - car interiors for example. The only thing that could compare to it at the time was the a-Minima, if the budget allowed. The HVX takes it further, with more resolution and latitude, albeit with less sensitivity. The HVX also has it's own tone. Red will be like a new instrument, and it's up to us to see what music we can make with it.
The nice thing about Red is its versatility. If we want shallow DOF, no problem. If a shot calls for deeper focus, go with 2K windowed, as well as the usual iris and focal length adjustments. If we want a clean image, no problem. If we want more grit, set it to a higher ISO, add ND, and if needed, add grain in post. Look at how Battlestar Galactica is using HD. They push the look in terms of color and grain to support the story, not trying to duplicate film necessarily, but to see what new things they can do with the tools.
The introduction of MIDI and sampling in the later 80's did lead to a deluge of truly horrible music. It also enabled great innovation by great artists. Desktop publishing led to perhaps an overall lowering of layout and design at first, but who would say that Photoshop is a negative thing? It's a tool that has expanded what an artist can do. It was the same with DV.
If you're playing (or creating) honkey-tonk, an old upright in need of some tuning will fit the bill. Put some tacks on the hammers to add an edge if you like. But don't use that piano for Chopin, get on a Steinway if you can. If your movie is introspective, Handycam can work fine. If you want the audience to gasp when your character reaches the top of the mountain and looks out over the sweeping vista, go with the best resolution and latitude you can get. HVX will be preferable and more effective than DVX, Red over HVX, for example.
I got an HVX in early March, and have been spending the time necessary to see what music I can make with it. I could (and will) spend years getting to know what I can do with it, as I try to do with every other aspect of the art and business we are in. The same will be true with Red; let's see what we can do with it. And with Red, unlike any other camera, we are being involved in it's direction. Les Paul pushed his tools in new directions so that he could innovate musically. As a group and as individuals, let's do the same.
Verko
Red One #508
(I really appreciate everyone's contribution on this forum; thanks everyone)
And within an instrument class, comparing violins to violins, there is a real difference between cheapos and a Stradivarius, when in the right hands. A virtuoso can make a cheapo sound great, but the same virtuoso WILL be able to noticeably improve on the performance with a higher-end violin. A novice will be limited either way, and only training, talent, tenacity (see Gibby's earlier post) will allow the novice to improve their results.
You can't make Citizen Kane or Barry Lyndon with grandma's handycam. For Barry Lyndon, lens speed, stock speed, development, etc. was critical for the candlelit scenes, for example, and the candlelit scenes were important in portraying that world. You couldn't convey the scale shown in Citizen Kane with a Handycam. The Handycam would detract from the story and make it laughable in certain scenes. You CAN make an equally impactful and artistic work with the Handycam, provided you use it's tone and flavor to further the story. Eraserhead was not technically state of the art at the time, hehe, but the look was integral with the story, in my opinion.
The DVX had a distinctive look that opened doors for many people, because of its progressive imagers, size, and price. It had it's own tone and flavor, and it could be put into some really tight spaces - car interiors for example. The only thing that could compare to it at the time was the a-Minima, if the budget allowed. The HVX takes it further, with more resolution and latitude, albeit with less sensitivity. The HVX also has it's own tone. Red will be like a new instrument, and it's up to us to see what music we can make with it.
The nice thing about Red is its versatility. If we want shallow DOF, no problem. If a shot calls for deeper focus, go with 2K windowed, as well as the usual iris and focal length adjustments. If we want a clean image, no problem. If we want more grit, set it to a higher ISO, add ND, and if needed, add grain in post. Look at how Battlestar Galactica is using HD. They push the look in terms of color and grain to support the story, not trying to duplicate film necessarily, but to see what new things they can do with the tools.
The introduction of MIDI and sampling in the later 80's did lead to a deluge of truly horrible music. It also enabled great innovation by great artists. Desktop publishing led to perhaps an overall lowering of layout and design at first, but who would say that Photoshop is a negative thing? It's a tool that has expanded what an artist can do. It was the same with DV.
If you're playing (or creating) honkey-tonk, an old upright in need of some tuning will fit the bill. Put some tacks on the hammers to add an edge if you like. But don't use that piano for Chopin, get on a Steinway if you can. If your movie is introspective, Handycam can work fine. If you want the audience to gasp when your character reaches the top of the mountain and looks out over the sweeping vista, go with the best resolution and latitude you can get. HVX will be preferable and more effective than DVX, Red over HVX, for example.
I got an HVX in early March, and have been spending the time necessary to see what music I can make with it. I could (and will) spend years getting to know what I can do with it, as I try to do with every other aspect of the art and business we are in. The same will be true with Red; let's see what we can do with it. And with Red, unlike any other camera, we are being involved in it's direction. Les Paul pushed his tools in new directions so that he could innovate musically. As a group and as individuals, let's do the same.
Verko
Red One #508
(I really appreciate everyone's contribution on this forum; thanks everyone)
wigby said:
Whooooaaaa. Watch anything, a film, a commercial, a sitcom without sound and notice the diference. Sound goes directly to the subconscious, and is therefore extremely powerful. It depends on the scene, but sound could be as much as 95% of the impact. Sound validates the image. Sound defines the space that the image resides in.
Respectfully,
Verko
Red One #508
Stephen W
Well-known member
John_Hudson said:
Actually, bad acting is something you need to catch early on (preferably before casting, in which case it fails to be a problem!) - by the time you're editing it's too late. But if you've got a naff actor on set the cinematographer and composer become your new best friends :beer:
I was actually thinking of "mediocre" in creative terms - if it's bad technically than yes, you're stuffed. But if it's just dull and uninspiring (this goes for the cinematography too) you can still make a great movie.
Kinda the point - for many the only option in that list is Red!
Stephen W said:So what you're saying is, once I have a Red, it will fully demonstrate my genius to the world?
I can live with that
Something like that. When I started playing the trumpet in the 7th grade, I had a cheapo. Worked fine for getting started. Once I reached a certain point, my teacher pushed me to get a better trumpet, as my fingers could go faster accurately than the valves could physically move, and the tone was dull, even though I was capable of something better. He had me try his trumpet, and the difference was dramatic. With the more capable trumpet, I was able to further refine my ability; the cheapo was masking growth in my technique. Imagine shooting with auto-iris as your only option. Sure, you could get creative in tricking the auto-iris to do what you want, but it's better to move on to more control as we are ready for it.
As far as getting the world to see your genius, it's all about promotion and exploitation, isn't it?
Verko
Red One #508
I totally agree. It is given that whether the 35 mm or digital camera exists, there will always be great amount of bad films and only a few good films produced. This premise will hold even a thousand years from now.
However, we should not equate creativity to producing a good film. A masterpiece takes into many factors. Similar to a puzzle, each piece represents script, actors/actresses, execution, theme, and etc. and each must work perfectly to produce a good film. Also, taking into the considerations of subjective value, relativity reference, historical context, and cultural sensitivity, judgment can vary at a wide spectrum. For instance, relativity factor can influence such as that part of the Lord of the Ring may look mediocre to our next generation. On other hand, art can be ahead of its time. For instance, people treated Van Gogh’s paintings like trashes until few years ago.
We all agree RED will not make a good filmmaker. However, its affordability, flexibility, and timing enable the filmmaker in taking a bigger step and the risk to explore and to take filmmaking to another realm or genre. There is a style, which the filmmaker wants to take the viewers on a slow pace through the storyline. The elements of color depth, organic image, and DOF are very crucial in order to hold the viewer’s interest to the end. If Vertical Ray of the Sun, a film made in this slow style, was shot in video, then viewers would give up early and never finish watching the film because video lacks the rich image in helping to carry the story.
There are many ways to tell a story and RED gives an independent filmmaker the capability to explore more ways to tell that story.
However, we should not equate creativity to producing a good film. A masterpiece takes into many factors. Similar to a puzzle, each piece represents script, actors/actresses, execution, theme, and etc. and each must work perfectly to produce a good film. Also, taking into the considerations of subjective value, relativity reference, historical context, and cultural sensitivity, judgment can vary at a wide spectrum. For instance, relativity factor can influence such as that part of the Lord of the Ring may look mediocre to our next generation. On other hand, art can be ahead of its time. For instance, people treated Van Gogh’s paintings like trashes until few years ago.
We all agree RED will not make a good filmmaker. However, its affordability, flexibility, and timing enable the filmmaker in taking a bigger step and the risk to explore and to take filmmaking to another realm or genre. There is a style, which the filmmaker wants to take the viewers on a slow pace through the storyline. The elements of color depth, organic image, and DOF are very crucial in order to hold the viewer’s interest to the end. If Vertical Ray of the Sun, a film made in this slow style, was shot in video, then viewers would give up early and never finish watching the film because video lacks the rich image in helping to carry the story.
There are many ways to tell a story and RED gives an independent filmmaker the capability to explore more ways to tell that story.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Stephen W said:
You have no idea. :beer:
Agreed !
And therein lies the myopia which brings us right back to the start
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I like that